Monday - June 18, 2012

Why do we always do America’s bidding?

This guy isn’t usually pro American and in fact, he is even less so here.
I do read him from time to time but it isn’t a habit.  However, the headline grabbed my attention as of course it was meant to do.
Something in the same vain appeared about a week ago, which I just ignored. 
I can not help but wonder if I’m in self denial.  Could it be true but I simply do not want to believe it? Why would someone lie about that if they could be easily exposed? 

I bet if any of us could be a fly on a wall in the corridors of power in both our countries, even though we may be skeptics anyway, we’d still be shocked by what we might hear.  But I find it hard to see how President Bush could have removed a Conservative Brit politician by whatever means.

Americans who are reading this should be aware that among very many here in the UK, the feeling is that the governments here whether Tory (Cons) or
Labour (Left/liberal), are under the control at worst or influence at least, of America.  And that is not just among those left leaning anti American Brits.
There are those here who genuinely like America and like Americans, but have reservations about our govts. and policies towards them.

On the other hand, for gentlemen like this journalist, we can never get things right.  And he always manages to find the proof which in this case is a diary.
Read on.  No matter where you stand on the issue or whether or not it’s true, I think you will still find this an interesting read.

From Vietnam to the Iraq war, why Britain’s leaders must always toady to Uncle Sam

By PETER MCKAY

Why do we always do America’s bidding, whichever party is in power here or there?

Our prime ministers usually defer to their presidents — even when ours are Labour, and supposedly Left-wing, and theirs are boilingly Right-wing Republicans.

Former Tony Blair spokesman Alastair Campbell neatly illustrates this disappointing truth in his latest volume of diaries.

He recalls how President George W. Bush was told by Mr Blair, in March 2003, that his support of the president’s planned invasion of Iraq was causing him difficulties.

Bush tells Blair not to worry about the Tories because ‘we will get rid of them’. He said he wouldn’t talk personally to the then Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith — whom he refers to as ‘Iain Duncan Baker’ — ‘but he’ll know my message’.

Clearly Mr Bush’s implication was that the Tory leader isn’t important. Only Blair is important.

And did Bush really think the Tory leader’s name was Iain Duncan Baker? Or, did he get it wrong deliberately to comfort Blair by suggesting that he (Bush) considered IDS so far down the pecking order that he couldn’t be bothered getting his name right?

When plucky Blair says he is ‘fighting on all fronts’, Bush replies: ‘Attaboy!’ (‘A bit too patronisingly for my taste,’ comments diarist Campbell.)

The president assures the PM: ‘I’m not going to let you down. Hang in their, buddy. You are doing great.’

Would Blair have sent British troops to fight in Vietnam if he — and not Harold Wilson — had been Labour’s prime minister in the Sixties? Wilson was broadly supportive of America’s escalating war against the North Vietnamese, but he wouldn’t commit British troops, as requested by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

As a result, the ‘special relationship’ — our supposed ‘favourite nation’ status — suffered. Indeed, Johnson wouldn’t receive Wilson in Washington for a time.

Plain-spoken LBJ told an aide: ‘We got enough pollution around here already without Harold coming over with his fly open and his p*cker hanging out, p****g all over me.’

There were hints by some U.S. politicians that America’s support for the weakening British pound might be conditional on our involvement in Vietnam — ‘$1 billion for a brigade,’ was one suggestion.

But LBJ discouraged such talk, saying his case in Vietnam would be damaged if it ever was made public.

Wilson had to tough out his position of broad support for U.S. aims, which were to prevent a communist insurgency from the North.

The Labour Party was in uproar over this. There was a near-riot in 1968 when mounted police charged protesters outside the U.S. Embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square.

Did Labour lose its appetite then for questioning US policy?

Some will take a relaxed view about the newly revealed Bush-Blair exchanges and Blair’s decision to support Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Even those who now concede that removing Saddam might have been a pointless, bloody exercise — based on lies about weapons of mass destruction — argue that it was ‘right at the time’.

As a people, we do not support the U.S. unequivocally in everything it does abroad. But our governments, Labour and Tory, have done so since the Vietnam debacle. Why this disconnect between the public and politicians?

The answer is: Britain’s security. America has helped bail out our economy in the past and might do so again in the future. Our defence arrangements — particularly our nuclear deterrent — are controlled by the U.S..

America helps our politicians punch way above their weight internationally. Tony Blair hasn’t become a multi-millionaire by lecturing foreigners about the mysteries of democratic governance. He’s done it by being recognised as a major player by America.

David Cameron, likewise, is elevated by his contacts with Washington. He, too, may find them useful when he ceases to be Prime Minister.

As for Ed Miliband, he is said to be enthusiastic about America, but he hasn’t been received by President Obama at the White House since becoming leader of HM Opposition in September 2010.

However, there is an interesting line in his CV which says: ‘In 2002, he took a 12-month unpaid sabbatical from the Treasury to be a visiting scholar at the Centre for European Studies of Harvard University for two semesters.’

Were they checking Ed out to see if he was their kind of British leader?

It’s an article of faith among Oxbridge dons that America’s CIA gives the once-over to all aspiring young politicos while they are at university, and follows it up with invitations to take up sabbaticals.

So, like every prime minister for almost 50 years, Ed looks a safe bet for America if he’s in power when they need our support.

MCKAY SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 06/18/2012 at 04:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics • UK • USA •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner